webslave

Movie World for some reason were happy enough for it to sit there like that for as long as it did. That's egregious enough, I'm not about to give them a free-kick by making that somehow the baseline for this project. More than you'd think. Your advertising has to be connected with reality though if you don't want people to feel ripped off. Rubbish. It hasn't been "completely transformed". Getting it back to a condition that is similar to what it was like when it was new is not a transformation. "New Technology" was not on the list of promises, and even if it were the use of it is sloppy, uninspired, and dated. Tip: 'dated' is not a word you want to hear when people are talking about your use of new technology. That Movie World allowed the ride to deteriorate to the point that it was internally a mess of barely-working effects does not move the baseline they set which was the condition on opening day. You don't buy a Lamborghini, crash it around, not mechanically maintain it to the point that it stops running and then buy a Hyundai Excel and call it an upgrade. I think this is where our views fundamentally differ. Under your logic repainting a roller-coaster that hasn't been done in fifteen years would count as an upgrade. Under mine it would count as maintenance/refurbishment. Yeah... I guess I'm old-school in that I believe that if you're going to tell the media you're going to be completely transforming the ride, taking people on a ride experience like never before, and changing the name of your ride to include the term "new generation" that you probably ought to be aiming a little higher than "arguably the best it has ever been".

What on earth are you talking about? The ride experience is the same, albeit with a couple of minor additions (of debatable quality). To refresh your memory: Where is the "completely transformed"? Transform, v: X to change in composition or structure X to change the outward form or appearance of X to change in character or condition Have they taken guests on a "ride experience like never before"? No. Are there new special effects? Yes. Are the special effects "improved"? Debatable. Is there new projection mapping? No. Is there improved projection mapping? No. Mist? Dunno. Sound effects? Dunno. To be absolutely clear here - if they told people that they were going to reinstate the ride as it was with a few enhancements I doubt you'd have anyone feeling that what was delivered wasn't what was promised. The tagline "Next Generation" tells the customer that this will demonstrate clear advantages over what it replaces - and from most accounts it fails to do so. I don't care that they managed to dig up some ancient plans for set pieces from well over a decade ago in homage to a film that was ultimately unmemorable - that was not the task. The task was to create a ride experience that lived up to the marketing; a complete transformation of what had come before it with new and improved special effects such as projection mapping, mist and sound effects to take guests on a ride experience like never before. It's not a museum piece; it's a marquee attraction in what is arguably the number one park on the Gold Coast. The marketing will get butts into the park to try it out - the execution is what will determine whether those guests feel like they got value out of the experience, and whether they feel like the park was genuine in what it sold them. It's in the execution that they have set themselves up for failure.

From the fact that the experience for the rider only very slightly differs from prior to the stripping.

That's not really how it works in this industry though - what you're talking about is a refurbishment in which you replace/repair items needing it and potentially add some new touches. Know why they didn't just call it a refurbishment? Because they know nobody is motivated to visit on the basis of a refurbishment. They want new. Let's review how this was sold: Fan favourite? Well, that doesn't exactly fit with the idea of enthusiasts bitching about it, does it? Has this ride been completely transformed? Well, there's been negligible change in the ride's form, or function. If they recreated every set piece from scratch out of new materials, why should we care? What was promised was not what was delivered. Even if they could have rebuilt from the same plans, should they have?

Who says it's a forum that's all about enjoying them?

As it turns out, I'm not - for a couple of good reasons; - Copyright law has exceptions for 'Fair Dealing', and in this case is covered by ss 41, 103A which provides for an exception based upon the assumption that copyright owners ordinarily expect to have their works subjected to criticism and review for the purposes of providing potential consumers with information about the works. - The image is reproduced when it was uploaded to Parkz' server, not when it's linked inline. Interestingly enough, there's also an exception under ss42, 103B for 'Reporting News' which sits around the public interest in promoting the free flow of knowledge, ideas and information. That may cover off his use, but to do it needs to be legitimate news and sufficient acknowledgement needs to be made. Misrepresentation of himself as the copyright holder of items such as logos, etc would not be lawful.

Yaaaay, my turn to be a pedant! You know, if you're going to school this guy on Copyright Law it would probably be best if you did not violate it whilst doing so. After all, did you get permission to reproduce the picture on the right? No. That's not how Copyright works. Disclaiming ownership provides you with no legal protection at all - it's just one of those dumb things that people do now 'just in case' in the same way that they also participate in chain mail. Copyright is also about more than just misrepresenting who is the owner of a work - it's also about unauthorized reproduction. It depends on what we are talking about ownership of - ownership of the photograph, or of the subject (or contents) of that photograph.

It's a lovely tourism campaign... Wait, it's for a theme park? Ah, sod it.

Not to mention Your Eyes Are Telling Lies: Reloaded.

Hey you could probably chance it and you'd be fine... ...but on the other hand on a project you're already working hard to get off the ground on limited funding why would you risk picking that type of a fight on day one?

Stuff like this is rarely the fault of one person or group, be it management nor the ride ops.

Personally, I think the test should be whether you knew - or should have known - that the decision you made materially increased the risk of serious injury or death occurring. Ergo; If you were denied the funding to complete an upgrade to safety/control components then the decision was not yours, therefore you are not culpable. Allowing a ride to return to operation several times following an intermittent fault may not make you culpable if you could demonstrate that you were unaware that doing so materially increased the risk of serious injury or death occurring (which would be a fairly high bar, but how many of us before now would have linked a pump failure with an accident like this? After all, as far as we were aware it's never happened in all the years of operation) If you knew the state of the safety infrastructure on a ride was deficient and knew this deficiency increased the risk of serious injury or death but either neglected to report it or down-played the risk when reporting it you are culpable.

I think Dreamworld would be lucky to have anything in their park with a capacity much over that of a small business jet...

I guess this begs the question - why was this guy in the job? How did he get hired, and why was he kept? Was there some other primary skill-set that he had that kept him in the job and the title just wasn't a good fit?

Yes, they are paid for the most part. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/melbourne-monopoly-board-makers-accused-of-taking-cash-for-spots-20151112-gkx0jo.html

Unless their own preferences ARE the right ones, of course. The 'right ones' in this case are the ones that best reflect those of the most lucrative demographic(s) in the marketplace. In which case that sort of attitude is called smart business.

I was thinking that perhaps they made the age-old mistake of setting their patrol areas to the relevant rides but forgetting to select the path in the middle. Seems as plausible as anything.

It's really no better or worse than a lot of other discussions here. In some ways I find the dumpster fire (and picturing the meetings going on behind it) rather interesting.

But where are you going to draw that line? Police are abused on the front-line daily. You couldn't possibly go into the job not knowing that. Should they be able to take work cover or sue every time someone says something hurtful? What about our armed forces - some of them are instructed to kill humans; should they also be able to turn around and say they have been wronged? I think in Australia we have a concept of what a reasonable person should expect from their role, and that's what people apply here. We expect that the likes of paramedics and nurses and surgeons will see human pain, suffering and gore far beyond the likes of what many of the rest of us are likely to encounter, and accordingly we expect that when you make that your career path you do so in that knowledge. That's in many cases why so many of these professions are respected and revered by the general public - regardless of what they are paid. Some people are going to find it harder in general or in specific cases than they bargained for, and for that we should support them - but does somebody else become legally liable for that? I'm not convinced.

Mate, so much of what you're saying makes good sense, but the opposing view is that one way or another someone needs to be the person who comes to deal with that stuff, and we simply can't be in a situation where lawsuits come out every time someone needs to deal with it when that person has a reasonable expectation that they are going to encounter those types of situations. There's no real winner here.

This came across, and I think I have a fair picture of what you were listening to. I'm really enjoying your coverage, and want to thank you very sincerely for providing this to us. We are very lucky, and I am sure that the majority of folk here will join me in thanking you for doing this.

It sounds like she didn't do very much, or at least hold much interest in the organization.

When I read/hear that sort of stuff it immediately makes me think they are not suitable for the job.